Bono's Op-Ed Article: Africa

The other day I took one of those stupid Facebook poll/quiz things. This one asked me to vote for the worst president out of a short list of five presidents. The five are not important, but I happened to pick Jimmy Carter as the worst, and, it just so happens that one of the other choices was our president just before Obama: George W. Bush. I immediately had a friend comment on the quiz and ask, "You really put Carter behind Bush #43, really?" My answer was, "Yes. I would. Talk to me in 25 years."

Today I read an op-ed article written by Bono and published in the New York Times on July 9, 2009. The title of the piece is "Africa" and you can read it by clicking on the title there.

I'm not one to give a lot of credibility to musicians' or actors' political opinions. I have been ignoring Bruce Springsteen and Barbra Striesand for years and they're two of my favorites. However, Bono isn't playing politics. Instead, he's trying to love well. As a result, I feel he is honest, no ax to grind.

One line in one paragraph of Bono's article about President Obama's visit to Ghana in particular drew my attention. Here is the paragraph: "The not-so-good news — that countries like Italy and France are not meeting their Africa commitments — makes the president’s visit all the more essential. The United States is one of the countries on track to keep its promises, and Mr. Obama has already said he’ll more than build on the impressive Bush legacy."

The sentence that I would actually love my friends that have a vitriolic opinion of our 43rd president, Bush to reread is this: "The United States is one of the countries on track to keep its promises, and Mr. Obama has already said he’ll more than build on the impressive Bush legacy." Did you catch that, "the impressive Bush legacy" part? What an honest guy to actually stick his neck out there among all the Bush haters to recognize that Bush's leadership with regard to Africa was important and admirable.

As for that Facebook poll I took, I can't recall ever reading somebody using the line "the impressive Carter legacy" to talk about something President Carter did while actually in office. Perhaps something he did as an ex-president, yes, but the poll wasn't asking about that. Who knows, maybe we won't have to wait a quarter of a century for history to present a realistic view of President George W. Bush.

That overrated fiscal responsibility thing . . .

Just in case you wonder why I am not a Republican. Arnold is supposedly a Republican, right? Here is a quote from him just the other day:

"I think the important thing for the Republican Party is now to also look at other issues that are very important for this country and not to get stuck in ideology," the governor said in an interview broadcast on CNN. "Let's go and talk about healthcare reform. Let's go and . . . fund programs if they're necessary programs and not get stuck just on the fiscal responsibility."

Nice to know the governor things fiscal responsibility is a bad place to be stuck.

Bob Barr on FOX

This moment with Bob Barr on Neil Cavuto's FOX News show aired on 09/08/2008. Barr may not be popular, but he sure is sensible.

Bush's Israeli Knesset Speech

It's been pretty difficult to avoid the news and soundbites about President George W. Bush's speech before the Israeli Knesset on Thursday, May 15. Below I have bolded the one paragraph (the 20th paragraph of the speech) that Senator Obama personalized and took offense to. Incidently, the paragraph that immediately follows that one is probably my favorite paragraph of the speech (the one that says "307 million strong").

Some have said the president was out of line to criticize another American while on foreign soil. I don't think so. This speech was brilliant.

I heard several clips on the radio and it was a very powerful speech. It was well received by the Israeli Parliament (witness the very long periods of applause. The speech moved me. I honestly think this is the best speech President Bush has given during his eight years in office. Furthermore, I agree with the sentiment of this speech and it actually makes me proud to be an American.

I know it is long, but I am posting the text of the speech here:

Prepared Text of Bush's Knesset Speech
May 15, 2008 4:04 a.m.
As Prepared for Delivery:
Remarks by the President to Members of the Knesset
The White House Office of the Press Secretary
(Jerusalem)

Shalom. Laura and I are thrilled to be back in Israel. We have been deeply moved by the celebrations of the past two days. And this afternoon, I am honored to stand before one of the world's great democratic assemblies and convey the wishes of the American people.

It is a rare privilege for an American President to address the Knesset. Although the Prime Minister told me there is something even rarer – to have just one person in this chamber speaking at a time. My only regret is that one of Israel's greatest leaders is not here to share the moment. He is a warrior for the ages, a man of peace, and a dear friend. The prayers of all Americans are with Ariel Sharon.

We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham, Moses, and David – a homeland for the chosen people in Eretz Yisrael.

Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world.

The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: "Come let us declare in Zion the word of God." The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.

Centuries of suffering and sacrifice would pass before this dream was fulfilled. The Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust – what Elie Wiesel called "the kingdom of the night." Soulless men took away lives and broke apart families. Yet they could not take away the spirit of the Jewish people, and they could not break the promise of God. When news of Israel's freedom finally arrived, Golda Meir, a fearless woman raised in Wisconsin, could summon only tears. She later said: "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words."

The joy of independence was tempered by the outbreak of battle, a struggle that has continued for six decades. Yet in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on a love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. And you have fought valiantly for freedom.

My country's admiration for Israel does not end there. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see world-class universities and a global leader in business, innovation, and the arts. And we see a resource more valuable than oil or gold – the talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any obstacle stand in the way of their destiny.

I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, and prayed at Yad Vashem. Earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: "Masada shall never fall again." Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will always stand with you.

This anniversary is a time to reflect on the past. It is also an opportunity to look to the future. As we go forward, our alliance will be guided by clear principles – shared convictions rooted in moral clarity and unswayed by popularity polls or the shifting opinion of international elites.

We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation.

We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.

We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms – whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them.

We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israel's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction.

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve.

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is the ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. That is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you.

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance, freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all of the world because they are a gift from Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. And societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners for peace.

This fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it in the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to the millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in freedom. We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.

That future will be a dramatic departure from the Middle East of today. So as we mark 60 years from Israel's founding, let us envision the region 60 years from now. This vision will not arrive easily or overnight, and it will encounter violent resistance from our enemies. But if we and future Presidents and Knessets maintain our resolve and have faith in our ideals, here is the Middle East we can see:

Israel will be celebrating its 120th anniversary as one of the world's great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved – a democratic state that is governed by law, respects human rights, and rejects terror. From Cairo and Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy, tourism, and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, where today's oppression is a distant memory and people are free to speak their minds and develop their talents. And al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause.

Overall, the Middle East will be characterized by a new period of integration and tolerance. This does not mean that Israel and its neighbors will be best friends. But when leaders across the region answer to their people, they will focus their energies on schools and jobs, not on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. With this change, Israel will open a hopeful new chapter in which its people can live a normal life, and the dream of Herzl and the founders of 1948 can be fully and finally realized.

This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be achieved. But think about what we have witnessed in our own time. When Europe was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it was difficult to envision a continent that six decades later would be free and at peace. When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions into American battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later Japan would be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of America's closest friends. And when waves of refugees arrived here in the desert with nothing, surrounded by hostile armies, it was almost unimaginable that Israel would grow into one of the freest and most successful nations on Earth.

Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of transformation is possible in the Middle East too, so long as a new generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of freedom, make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand firm on the solid rock of universal values.

Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel's independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar – the key to Zion Gate – and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, "Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day." Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: "I accept this key in the name of my people."

Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on America to stand at its side. May God bless Israel.

Voting for Judges: Who Knows?

Are you planning to vote in the upcoming election on June 3, 2008?  I hope so. I wanted to let you all know who I am voting for in the judicial elections.  I know that it's weird voting for judges because most of us are not informed in the "lesser" races. Who are these people? I took the time to do a bit of research, made some phone calls and even spoke to a couple of the candidates themselves.  Here's how I am voting:

Judge of the Superior Court

Office No. 25

JOHN NHO TRONG NGUYEN

I am voting for him because it is very rare that a sitting judge is challenged.  Mr. John Nguyen recently changed his party registration to be a "decline-to-state-voter" which is what I am. His opponent (be careful as they share the same last name) is a registered Democrat. The guy I voted for, John Nguyen, has the endorsement of a major Orange County Republican, Tom Fuentes.

Judge of the Superior Court

Office No. 4

NICK THOMPSON

After reading his website, I was leaning toward Mr. Nick Thompson.  I then spoke with him over the phone and that put me over the top to choose him.  Mr. Thompson is a law and order guy.  The guy has seen combat too. He holds a Bronze Star for service in Iraq. He's received Army commendations.

Judge of the Superior Court

Office No. 8

BARRY COLLINS

I spoke with a friend of Mr. Collins over the phone.  The friend happened to be a former pastor.  Mr. Collins is a follower in the way of Jesus Christ.  He has actually co-authored a children's book on biblical justice that I'm told is being used in Africa.  Also, he has done work in Rwanda.  Mr. Collins attends Saddleback Church.  For you party-line people, I believe the higher ups in the GOP have actually endorsed Mr. Collins opponent, but I don't care.  I think Mr. Collins will be a no-nonsense judge.

Judge of the Superior Court

Office No. 12

MICHAEL FLORY

This one is a bit trickier because there are four people running. The two at the top (Kermit Marsh & Debra Carrillo) are well-connected people and appear to be pretty beholden to the Republicans. They are both endorsed by the head D.A., Tony Rackauckas. BOTH of them!? Frankly, I don't care because it's politics as usual.  Apparently, the only female candidate, Debra Carrillo, is a good friend of Mr. Rackauckas' wife so he "had" to endorse her.  I received an e-mail from Carrillo and she made some strong allegations against Flory, saying he has had "several troubling incidents of bad behavior in court" so you might want to proceed with caution. I personally spoke with Mr. Flory and he actually reminds me of myself, politically only. I also feel he has the most experience for the job.  He is a long-time Deputy D.A., a prosecutor.  I like that.  I also think it's cool that he listed his cell phone on his website:  714-305-5648. He told me, "Have your friends give me a call."  He also claims one of his "problems" is being too honest.  "I'm not going to tell you what you want to hear; I'm going to tell you what I actually believe."  In all fairness, I also spoke with K.C. Jones who even Mr. Flory says is a nice guy.  I just don't think he's going to be as good at the job of superior court judge.  If you don't vote for Flory, you should vote for Debra Carrillo. She was a police officer for several years, then a bailiff, and now a deputy district attorney.

These are my opinions only.  You can take them or leave them. My absentee ballot is in the mail.

A War We Just Might Win

In my view this is a very important piece. This is from THE NEW YORK TIMES:

July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win

By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.

Buggin' Me

Off the top of my head . . .

TOP TEN THINGS I'M SICK OF

10. Anti-bacterial anything
9. E.D. (impotence) advertisements
8. Grocery Store Club Cards
7. Ticketmaster
6. Combo Classes
5. Paris Hilton
4. Democrats
3. Republicans
2. Al Gore
1. The 2008 Election

Extinct Political Labels

Do you remember the old stereotypes of the two major political parties? I remember growing up, the Republicans would call the Democrats "big spenders" and they would say things to their opponents like, "All you do is tax and spend." The Democrats were supposedly for bigger government and the Grand Old Party wanted less government. I remember members of the GOP saying things like, "We want government out of your lives" or "The government that governs least, governs best," things like that.

Boy, those old stereotypes are dead, aren't they? I was just reading an article by renound Princeton historian, Sean Wilentz and he pointed out that the administration of George W. Bush has borrowed more money than all the prevous presidencies combined. You read that correctly, "according to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions." On the other hand, just "between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion." You can check out the history at the Bureau of the Public Debt.

Now, when I read that I immediately thought of somethings Wilentz didn't mention, like the cost of a Hummer driving across the desert in Iraq certainly cost more than your average horse back in the day, a musket under Washington certainly cost less than a riffle under Bush 43. Yet, those figures are staggering! Just staggering.

Bush actually inherited the largest federal surplus in American History. Now we have the largest deficit ever. I mean who would have guessed that John Kerry was the fiscal conservative in the last election? It's not just 9/11 and the subsequent wars either. Has this president vetoed any spending bills at all? What are we doing with all this money? If a lot of this money was going to the Global HIV/AID Initiative, I'd be way cool with that, but I read that the 2007 Budget that Bush sent to Congress actually had a net cut of money pledged to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. I read on Bono's DATA site that the cost to fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria worldwide is under 20 Billion per year. His ONE campaign seeks a mere 1% of the US budget go toward fighting AIDS. One percent of our outlandish budget is about $25 billion dollars. I bring this up because, if all this debt we're racking up would go to something like ending AIDS, heck even preventing AIDS in Africa, or helping starving children, then it would be worth it, but that's not where it is going.

What about the concept of the government that governs least, governs best? Republicans tout that concept. But, we've gotten a much much bigger government under Bush 43. If you think about how the powers of government have been expanded under this president then you certainly must acknowledge that fact. We're talking discarding the Geneva Conventions, domestic surveillance, and the torture of detainees. Is the de facto suspension of habeas corpus something you would expect from the party that claims to distrust big government? Just curious.

How about "We want government out of your lives?" What does that even mean anymore? Maybe the Republicans want government out of your wallet, but not out of your lives. When I think about just a few issues like Terri Schiavo, homosexuals, unions, and abortion rights, it's obvious that "the government that governs least, governs best" and "we want government out of your lives" are just empty pieces of rhetoric; in practice, they're dead as the dodo bird.

I recently read an article in the Op/Ed page of the LA Times by a detainee in Guantanamo that broke my heart. Let me back up though, on September 1, 2006, in the same newspaper, Donald Rumsfeld, arguing that Guantanamo was not like a gulag, wrote: "The facility at Guantanamo Bay, by contrast, includes a volleyball court, basketball court, soccer field and library (the book most requested is "Harry Potter"). The food, served in accordance with Islamic diets, costs more per detainee than the average U.S. military ration." If you want to read his piece, New Enemies Demand New Thinking you can click on that link.

Now back to the detainee mentioned at the beginning of the previous paragraph. On October 1, 2006, the LA Times published No Holiday in Gitmo: I never saw Rumsfeld's volleyball courts during my two years in America's gulag by Moazzam Begg. Begg was taken from his home in Pakistan right in front of his wife and children. He spent one year in two prisons in Afghanistan and two years in an 8x6 cell at Guantanamo Bay: three years total without seeing or talking to his wife and children (including a son he had never seen). Begg wrote: "The principle 'innocent until proven guilty' is turned on its head. Everyone is guilty without charges, convicted without a trial." Does this seem to go with your idea of a less intrusive government?

Now before you size me up and try to pigeonhole my political leanings, let me just continue. This morning, on the way to work, I was listening to the song "I Am A Patriot" as sung by Jackson Browne, but written by Little Steven. Despite the fact that I've heard this song for over a decade, it actually brought tears to my soul. The lyrics, in part, say:

I ain't no communist
I ain't no capitalist
I ain't no socialist
I ain't no imperialist
I ain't no democrat
I ain't no republican
I only know one party
and it's name is freedom

I used to be a Democrat in the 1980s. The first guy I ever voted for was Jessie Jackson in a primary election. In the 1990s, I switched to a registered Republican. More recently, I changed that to Libertarian. But, for some time now, I have been unaffilated with a political party and registered simply as "decline to state." Part of the reason for that is articulated perfectly in the above lyrics. Another is that I see very little difference between the Democrats and Republicans nowadays. After all, the politically mixed legislative branch has largely supported the executive branch in many of the matters heretofore mentioned in this post. For example, the Republicans in Congress did not balk at the out of controll spending and the Democrats, for the most part, supported the war in Iraq.

I really don't consider myself liberal or conservative. It's funny, my liberal friends think I am pretty conservative and my conservative friends think I am pretty liberal. I will tell you that the most inspirational and eloquent political speech I have heard in the last 10 years came from Barack Obama in 2004. Here is part of what he said:

Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it.

I thought that was well put. Like I said, it inspired me. Maybe that's just because I'm weird. I mean, in the most recent election last week I voted for three different political parties. If anything I would have to say that I am fiscally pretty darn conservative and socially a bit liberal. Even though it's a cliche, I really do try to look at the individual candidate. I don't have a litmus test either.

Now, before you think, "Ah, ha, Doah quoted a Democrat, he must be a liberal," please consider these other words that Barak Obama spoke in his "Call to Renewal" speech on June 28, 2006, right after Alan Keyes stated publiclly, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." As a retort, here's part of what Obama said:

Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope . . . . And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

You see what really makes me bothered is another outmoded stereotype: God has a preference for one policial party. For God, doesn't always come down to the heart? I mean, anyone who knows the Bible knows that King David is routinely referred to as "a man after God's own heart." However, David had Uriah the Hittite killed so that he could cover up an affair with Uriah's wife. By the way, if you want some reading that will top an episode of Desperate Housewives, check out 2 Samuel 11 and 12 (actually, I've never seen an episode so forgive me if I misstated that, but the passage is juicy). Nevertheless, Christians frequently act as if somebody who belongs to a party that supports abortion rights, cannot have a heart for God. Why is that? That's what Alan Keyes did to Obama. And, that's another reason I love that first Obama quote above because he says, "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States." How dare Alan Keyes claim to know how Jesus would vote. The funny thing is, I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 primary. But, what about Jesus's words in Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Would that apply to what Alan Keyes said about Obama?

I imagine that if, six months ago, Ted Haggard was running for public office as a Republican against Barak Obama, a Democrat, Alan Keyes and many Christians would indeed have claimed that Jesus would vote for Haggard. I wonder if that would still be the case now that Haggard confessed to a sexual sin with a male prostitute? I wonder, would Jesus indeed pick somebody with unconfessed sin in their heart, leading a double life, just because they were not in favor of abortion rights? Notice I am not using "pro-choice" or "pro-life" here because it is the very contention of this post that these labels avail at nothing. I don't know. I just wonder.

I certainly do not think that the Democrats are godless or the Republicans are evil or that the Democrats are stupid or the Republicans are heartless or any of those pathetic statements that miss the grayness of life. That said, labels like "tax and spend Democrats" or "compassionate conservative" or "Party of Big Government" or "God's party" just don't matter anymore. Maybe they never did. We've had a Republican controlled Congress with a Republican executive branch since 2001 and this government seems plenty big to me. The old political stereotypes are dead. I mean really, go back to the "No Holiday in Gitmo" Op/Ed piece that I mentioned earlier. Bush ran on a platform of "compassionate conservatism" (now there's a label), but does the treatment of Moazzam Begg seem very compassionate to you?

Now, I told you I didn't want you to pigeonhole my political leanings, but I do welcome a good political debate and I would love to hear your comments. And, just to give you a little bit more to get worked up over, I'll say this in closing: If I was arrested as a suspected terrorist, I would rather be in the hands of Jerry Brown than Donald Rumsfeld. If my son had AIDS, I would rather Bono be in charge of his medicine and the finances to buy his medicine than George W. Bush. If somebody in my family was gay, I'd rather invite Barack Obama over for Thanksgiving dinner than Alan Keyes. Of course, I'd rather grab an In-n-Out burger with Sean Hannity than Al Franken though.

Disillusionment

So, California votes to spend, borrow, and tax itself into oblivion (bonds are not free money people); Tom McClintock loses the Lt. Governor's race to Garamendi (McClintock won 60.9% to Garamendi's 34.4% in my county, but lost 44.9% to 49.5% statewide!); Britney Spears is divorcing K-Fed (if I had hope for any marriage); Rumseld steps down (to spend more time with his family I presume); and, to top it all off . . . after tonight's episode, there won't be a new episode of LOST until February!

The next thing you're going to tell me is that evangelical leaders and pastors are susceptible to moral failings just like "normal" people!

Got My Vote

The other day I was talking with this buddy of mine. We both used to be really political, you know, reading everything, watching debates and pundits on television. I was telling him that I noticed we haven't talked about politics in awhile. I confessed that, other than voting, I've given up. My problem I told him was that there isn't but a dime's-width of difference between the so-called two parties. I'm watching in amazement as the Republicans spend us into oblivion. Who knew that John Kerry turned out to be the fiscal conservative in the last election? A different friend called me during the last State of the Union and was surprised that I wasn't watching--the first in a decade. I told him I couldn't stomach the balderdash.

I recently heard that, in California, both the Democrats and the Republicans are losing registered voters. This news report stated that registration documents show the biggest gainer is a "decline to state" registration. That's funny because I switched to that classification myself just last year.

My pal George then e-mails me and says, The only politics I'm concerned about lately is summed up in this campaign ad:

JESUS FOR KING
BECAUSE THE ULTIMATE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
IS A BENIGN DICTATORSHIP!

I can't add anything to that. Got my vote!